WFB 9th Edition

kyussinchains

Post subject: Re: WFB 9th Edition

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:24 pm

Hybrid

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pmPosts: 6329Location: Leicester UK

From what I've read and seen, it's clearly meant to be a fun game to play with very little to mire you down in thinking about tactics and positioning, much more about chucking dice around and casual play than anything serious

If GW were serious about making a good ruleset then they could have adopted the LotR/Hobbit rules which by all accounts are excellent skirmish rules

I find it amusing to read all the pro-AoS stuff from some of my FB friends who go out of their way to say how much fun it is, almost as if they're trying to convince themselves more than anyone else.... most of them have never even heard of SAGA, frostgrave, malifaux and others and give really lame reasons for why they're playing a game with a provably shitty ruleset in lieu of any of the alternatives.... basically as far as I can tell it boils down to the fact that they will put up with any shit GW puts out because they buy into the hype....

I've got no horse in the race (seriously, fantasy tropes can take a long walk off a short pier in my opinion) but perhaps they simply find it entertaining and enjoyable. After all, so much about gaming is subjective and while I presume that you didn't mean it as such, it does come of a bit denigrating to somehow make it sound like some type of Stockholm-Syndrome if they like it

Having quietly paid much attention and read plenty I really think the game appeals more to the way a CCG works, just using models instead of cards to build a "deck". Perhaps there's an aspect of that that some people simply like? Of course that's my own opinion so I've got a mountain of salt to share with you

You're so spot on with the LotR/Hobbit rules. It's honestly in the top 5 rule sets in my take. Actually it even scales up to a mass battle game as well which is pretty nice too. I think you're spot on in a bit of amazement that GW hasn't leveraged it more (or really at all). They could honestly of simply used it completely as a 9th edition rule set and had more than 2 games. I should also note that the new setting doesn't matter, after all, post end times fluff included, happens to not preclude having mass combat fantasy game. I mean, what? Armies don't occasionally clash in the AoS setting? So yeah, your knights are not call bretonians anymore but that doesn't mean they don't perfectly work for whatever equivalent exists.

_________________He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

hey, some people voluntarily choose to listen to the grateful dead, so there really is no accounting for taste....

my issue is when people are defending it as a skirmish ruleset and well designed game, and discounting the crippling holes as unimportant.... the mental gymnastics I see some people leaping to is insane, just as insane as someone torching a grand's worth of painstakingly painted models.....

GW itself produces by all accounts an excellent fantasy skirmish ruleset in LotR (I've never played myself) and there are lots of well written games out there but something seems to click in a certain type of person's brain that GW is better and they will make up all kinds of junk to convince themselves of it

maybe it is fun, I've considered it as a possibility for an xmas present for my son as he is itching to paint models and the rules should be easily grasped by his 6 year old, pigeon-like brain, but it's also permissable to admit something you like is a bit crappy... I'm a big fan of Findus Crispy Pancakes and Pot Noodle, despite them being godawful insults to food after all

I think someone saying 'I really like this game because reasons, and I'm not interested in others also because reasons' is pretty poor, and makes me feel bad for companies who spend more than 2 weeks playtesting their games to make them as good as can be, that a certain strata of potential customers is so enraptured by whatever dross GW feels like releasing, that they are unwilling to try anything else....

from the guys at my FLGS who have been playing AoS and who play a range of other games from other manufacturers, I'm not hearing good things about the longevity of the game and how it's basically the same thing every time, it seems to be long time GW customers who are the most positive about it.... they have their reasons, fine, but dont you think it's maybe just a teensy tiny bit of indoctrination? which after all is what GW is all about!

my issue is when people are defending it as a skirmish ruleset and well designed game, and discounting the crippling holes as unimportant.... the mental gymnastics I see some people leaping to is insane, just as insane as someone torching a grand's worth of painstakingly painted models.....

And most of the complaints I'm seeing are from the whiney, entitled types that haven't actually tried out the game and are hating on it just because it's "popular" to do so. They usually don't form an opinion on it through actual experience.

Quote:

GW itself produces by all accounts an excellent fantasy skirmish ruleset in LotR (I've never played myself) and there are lots of well written games out there but something seems to click in a certain type of person's brain that GW is better and they will make up all kinds of junk to convince themselves of it

War of the Ring was a very good set. If this new fantasy had been based on that, I would have been just as happy.

Quote:

maybe it is fun, I've considered it as a possibility for an xmas present for my son as he is itching to paint models and the rules should be easily grasped by his 6 year old, pigeon-like brain, but it's also permissable to admit something you like is a bit crappy... I'm a big fan of Findus Crispy Pancakes and Pot Noodle, despite them being godawful insults to food after all

See, it's this kind of insulting crap (about the game only being for 6-year-olds) that help give the AoS haters a bad rep.

Quote:

I think someone saying 'I really like this game because reasons, and I'm not interested in others also because reasons' is pretty poor, and makes me feel bad for companies who spend more than 2 weeks playtesting their games to make them as good as can be, that a certain strata of potential customers is so enraptured by whatever dross GW feels like releasing, that they are unwilling to try anything else....

And yet, you pile on the same way.

Quote:

from the guys at my FLGS who have been playing AoS and who play a range of other games from other manufacturers, I'm not hearing good things about the longevity of the game and how it's basically the same thing every time, it seems to be long time GW customers who are the most positive about it.... they have their reasons, fine, but dont you think it's maybe just a teensy tiny bit of indoctrination? which after all is what GW is all about!

I'm seeing the opposite here. AoS at the local FLGS that I have been too seems to be growing in popularity as more people try it out.

I like you kyuss, but your post seems nothing more than an uneducated rant about the game. Sure, some people don't like it. Sure, it's not perfect. Epic isn't perfect, yet people play that still, even after it's death.

I have played AoS and I have fun, and I'm seeing many, many people with the same attitude as mine. And none of them are 6 year olds with pigeon brains. Seriously, you don't have to like the game, but going after those that do is petty. And besides, why is it so important to you that the game is so bad? Don't like it? Don't play it. Let others play it and have fun.

I really can't see how it's defensible as a rule set with the measure to model rule, lack of points and the comedy rules for the dead races (which GW has admitted are to make it embarrassing to play publicly).

I've not played it but seen half a dozen games and they all devolve into a scrum in the middle of the board. My FLGS manager also found this.

As Kyussinchains was alluding to its very odd gamers saying finally a skirmish rules set when there are so many massively superior ones out there.

If AoS had been a skirmish entry level accompaniment to WFB then great but to replace it is a incredible. IMO the main driving force is to remove all the stuff that can't be easily defended as GW IP. If I was a WFB player who bad armies worth 1000s and had just invested in now obsolete End times books and models only months ago it would be torch and pitchfork time

And most of the complaints I'm seeing are from the whiney, entitled types that haven't actually tried out the game and are hating on it just because it's "popular" to do so. They usually don't form an opinion on it through actual experience.

yup, and that works totally the other way round, people are dismissing the half a dozen alternative games on what effectively boils down to 'they aren't made by GW'

Quote:

War of the Ring was a very good set. If this new fantasy had been based on that, I would have been just as happy.

not the point I was making, but happy to hear it

Quote:

See, it's this kind of insulting crap (about the game only being for 6-year-olds) that help give the AoS haters a bad rep.

it's plainly obvious that a rulebook with approximately 100 pages fewer than a previous edition, and removed rules for charge bonuses, flanking, ranks etc, and MASSIVELY simplified rules would be easier for my son to pick up, if you choose to take offense, then that's your perogative, but you're making a serious leap there in my saying I think it would be a good game for my 6-year old to "this game is for 6-year olds and you must have the brain of a 6-year old to enjoy it" if anything I was more insulting to my own son....

Quote:

And yet, you pile on the same way.

what because of the fact that you can shoot melee weapons in combat, quite often will be able to take two consecutive turns giving you a stupidly huge advantage over your opponent, count as outnumbered if you have 99 dragons to your opponents 100 goblins and get handicaps in your favour, and have basically no incentive to outflank your opponent or charge in? those seem like pretty big flaws in a system to me... this is not just from a cursory glance at the rules, I've spoken to guys who've played it and watched youtube batreps, one day I may even dust off the dark elves in the attic and give the game a run out, but it just seems that most of the counterarguments run like this

Detractor: "the game has no bonuses for charging, or flanking or mutual support, it doesn't seem to encourage careful movement, or any kind of thoughtful, tactical play"Fan "yeah but I like it, it's fun"

which for the most part is all I see in response to any and all questions, now of course fun is important, but evidently we have differing expectations of how we derive that from a game

Quote:

I'm seeing the opposite here. AoS at the local FLGS that I have been too seems to be growing in popularity as more people try it out.

good for them, I hope it remains fun and everyone is happy with it, I genuinely do

Quote:

I like you kyuss, but your post seems nothing more than an uneducated rant about the game. Sure, some people don't like it. Sure, it's not perfect. Epic isn't perfect, yet people play that still, even after it's death.

I have played AoS and I have fun, and I'm seeing many, many people with the same attitude as mine. And none of them are 6 year olds with pigeon brains. Seriously, you don't have to like the game, but going after those that do is petty. And besides, why is it so important to you that the game is so bad? Don't like it? Don't play it. Let others play it and have fun.

how can I stop anyone playing it? it's not important that the game is so bad, it's just that it seems so mediocre and nobody seems to care, people actually seem to enjoy that, it's also alienated a massive slice of the community with a heavy handed approach.... EVERYTHING you can do with AoS was possible under previous editions of the game, but in addition two dudes at a club could play a pickup game and know it was at least points-balanced, tournament organisers had constraints to set.... plenty of us really loved the lore of the old world and wider warhammer world in general, even if we'd stopped playing WFB long ago, now that's dead we'll attract fewer people to Warmaster as in a few years there will be loads of guys who've never heard of Bretonnia or Araby, and will want to know why there are no Sigmarines.....

maybe all the clever tactics will come out as more people play the game and I'll be eating my words, time will tell

also yes people are still playing epic, but fewer and fewer are picking it up now, it's a dying game, so yes people can play 8th or whatever edition they like, but fewer and fewer will get into it...

out of simple curiosity, have you ever played SAGA, Malifaux, Frostgrave or any other skirmish-based Fantasy game? if so, what did you dislike about them? how is AoS a better game than them?

I have played AoS and I have fun, and I'm seeing many, many people with the same attitude as mine.

Are you actually playing it no modifications, measuring from any point of the model, random charge distance, shooting whilst in melee, no points values, win by declaring an otherwise impossible dice result rules as written though?

Even the people I've seen playing and enjoying AoS have been measuring from bases, agreeing on some kind of army selection comp and many other tweaks here and there. At that point though, you aren't playing Age of Sigmar, you're playing your own creation.

the Age of Sigmar rules and warscrolls would have been fine as an interesting White DwarfSteamhead Duardin* article and game about what happened to Sigmar post End Times, him being up in his heavens fighting Chaos with his chosen few fallen warriors from the Old World reincarnated as Aesir, but instead they chose to literally kill their oldest property and replace it with an entirely different game at an incredibly high initial buyin price. The fact that the rules read like a hastily cobbled together alpha playtest document when they already had a well received skirmish ruleset already is just the icing on the cake.

Are you actually playing it no modifications, measuring from any point of the model, random charge distance, shooting whilst in melee, no points values, win by declaring an otherwise impossible dice result rules as written though?

Yes. And no. Yes, some games we play are btb, and are still fun if a bit quirky. No, some other games we make some other adjustments as dictated by our opponents and by the game store owner. Just like other games I play, we adjust and alter as we see fit.

Quote:

Even the people I've seen playing and enjoying AoS have been measuring from bases, agreeing on some kind of army selection comp and many other tweaks here and there. At that point though, you aren't playing Age of Sigmar, you're playing your own creation.

Well, not really, as they didn't create the thing, GW did. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing it in an altered fashion. Like I mentioned above, there are several games over the years that have been "tweaked". Heck, I don't think I've ever play a game of E:A (back in the day) that was exactly btb.

Quote:

the Age of Sigmar rules and warscrolls would have been fine as an interesting White DwarfSteamhead Duardin* article and game about what happened to Sigmar post End Times, him being up in his heavens fighting Chaos with his chosen few fallen warriors from the Old World reincarnated as Aesir, but instead they chose to literally kill their oldest property and replace it with an entirely different game at an incredibly high initial buyin price. The fact that the rules read like a hastily cobbled together alpha playtest document when they already had a well received skirmish ruleset already is just the icing on the cake.

Sorry, I don't have as much sympathy, as WHFB wasn't selling well. It had to go. I loved the fluff, enjoyed the setting, was meh over the rules. Oh, and though you might think the rules read as a "hastily cobbled together alpha playtest document", I do not agree. They're not as in-depth as other rules, but that's okay. Not every game has to be complicated, not every game has to have 96 page of rules, and not every game has to be exactly like every other game. All I ask of a game is that it be fun. And so far, AoS is fun.

If WHFB was to change, I would have preferred something similar to WotR, or if skirmish-y, something similar to WM/Hordes. But that's not what we got, and regardless of that fact, I still like it. It's not the best game I've ever played, and I'm not actually a fanboi (I'm just getting pissed at the players of AoS being shackled with insulting labels), but it's actually gotten me to play that scale of games again, brought me out of my self-imposed retirement. And to me, that's fairly impressive.

I understand where you are coming from Splash, but I think the thrust of it for me, is that AOS should have been brought out as a separate game - after all, they will soon need something to replace LoR.

I "invested" heavily in Warhammer over the years, and my 2 young sons love playing - this of course won't stop us playing it but it does put you off and get more difficult when a game isn't supported (especially for me as I would like to play against people my own age/ability instead of my sons all the time (they are always beating me............).

For me, GW have really messed up here and although I understand that 8th might not have been doing that well, there are ways and means of doing things rather than completely destroying a gaming system that people liked and played all of the time (8th edition was more popular than 40k at my gaming store).

So , I have invested massively in a game and got my sons into and they go and kill it. I have played AoS and tried to give it ago but even my 8 year old son lost interest after the 3rd game stating "dad, it is all the same each game".

So all in all, we have a game that my 8 year old son gets bored by, I imagine he would rather go play his computer (which is exactly why I got him into WHFB). No real tactics, no real thinking, just a weak version of 40k in my opinion.

People should have fun when they play, of course they should, but it doesn't mean that GW should go and wreck a decent system with what I can only call a heap of rubbish and alienate (once again) a large portion of their fan base - sound familiar?

I understand where you are coming from Splash, but I think the thrust of it for me, is that AOS should have been brought out as a separate game - after all, they will soon need something to replace LoR.

That I understand, or course. If AoS was a seperate game, I'd still enjoy it. I'm fairly certain that the obsessed haters will still come out in droves and think that their opinions should be everyone else's. Just the nature of the gaming community anymore.

Quote:

I "invested" heavily in Warhammer over the years, and my 2 young sons love playing - this of course won't stop us playing it but it does put you off and get more difficult when a game isn't supported (especially for me as I would like to play against people my own age/ability instead of my sons all the time (they are always beating me............).

I, too, invested heavily in WHFB, back when the Tomb Kings were first release (what edition was that?). I was also talked into buying a DE army box. I ended up selling off my TK, and most of the DE ended up in my bitz box. But it is what it is, things change. I don't feel I'm out all of that money and time, as I had fun when I played. I can always go and play older editions if I wanted to. This isn't a probelm with GW, it's a problem with the gaming community.

And as for it getting more difficult when a game isn't supported---E:A seems to have done well for itself after it's death. Take that as a great example and not lose hope.

Quote:

For me, GW have really messed up here and although I understand that 8th might not have been doing that well, there are ways and means of doing things rather than completely destroying a gaming system that people liked and played all of the time (8th edition was more popular than 40k at my gaming store).

Sure, but that's all hindsight at the moment. But coming out with something other than AoS isn't a guarantee that you would like it either. And, again, 8th edition isn't destroyed. It can always be played, your minis haven't suddenly gone inert or disappeared, have they? Just like with E:A, you'll have to find a community to play with. I've been doing that since Clan Wars by AEG was killed off. I still have the rules, I still have the miniatures, and I'm quite capable of playing the game given time and opponents. That's not on AEG, that's just on my own amount of determination.

Quote:

So , I have invested massively in a game and got my sons into and they go and kill it. I have played AoS and tried to give it ago but even my 8 year old son lost interest after the 3rd game stating "dad, it is all the same each game".

And that kind of feedback I appreciate, better than the "I hatez and won't try it and anyone that likes it is a deranged 6-year old". That mentality is what peeves me off. But I will counter that I do like it, have played it, and I do know people that like it as well. Heck, even my wife is interested in playing, and she hasn't played minis games for about 7 years now.

Quote:

So all in all, we have a game that my 8 year old son gets bored by, I imagine he would rather go play his computer (which is exactly why I got him into WHFB). No real tactics, no real thinking, just a weak version of 40k in my opinion.

Of course, that's all just your opinion, as I've seen tactics used, I've seen real thinking put into a game, and I don't see much similarity at all with 40k, other than the round bases, loose squad cohesion, and a faction that looks like space knights (though space marines are actual space knights, so things come around full circle).

Like you, though, those are just my opinions.

Quote:

People should have fun when they play, of course they should, but it doesn't mean that GW should go and wreck a decent system with what I can only call a heap of rubbish and alienate (once again) a large portion of their fan base - sound familiar?

Again, AoS being rubbish is just your opnion. And it's GW's property, they can do with it as they please. I don't have much sympathy for 8th edition, I have heard as much good things and as much bad things, but never played it myself, so I personally can't formulate an opinion on the actual game. I followed the fluff as best as I could (it's decent, but filled with the usual fantasy tropes--AoS improves that), and I understand that the game had to change and change in a big way. Altering it slightly isn't actual change. No one in the world should expect everyone to be happy, of course, and no one should think that everyone should hate it either. It's brought me back into gaming in that scale, it's brought my wife back into it. Those are two very good indicators of the worth of this game.

I seriously doubt that a "large" portion of their fan base are actually alienated--or alienated to the point that GW can no longer count on their money. From what I've seen, again, my own opinion, the discontented are the loudest, thanks to the megaphone that is the internet. Those that are content, however, have no reason to complain, so are the silent majority in this. I only make noise about it because I'm getting sick of the haters blindly rage-hating with no real reason to do so other than just to hate. I'm not proclaiming AoS the greatest product of our time, nor am I a fan of GW. I am, like you, just calling it like I see it and trying to counter those obsessed with hating something they most likely have little actual idea what it is about. If someone doesn't like it, then just don't play it. No one is being forced to play it. And I'd like to point out, if "so many" are alienated and still want to play 8th edition and ignore AoS, then you should have no problem finding those people to play it, right?

I think I've belabored this enough and proven my point and clearly posted my opinion. Thank you for the discussion, binarybob. I appreciate the candor.

All we have to go on are our personal accounts in the clubs that we visit, because GW never release really comprehensive figures beyond general sales. No suggestion of investment in a particular range vs. payoff. Even store manager accounts vary wildly within a country or region.

I'll just say that for my group - they're all older gamers who have moved on from 40K and Fantasy but even so still have a fondness for the properties and aesthetic of the GW worlds. A couple of years ago when I joined the club there were still people playing Fantasy and I even ended up wanting to join in myself. I must have spent a couple of hundred quid on High Elf stuff. People wanted to dig out their Oldhammer armies now and then for a go.

There's absolutely no interest in this. We have SAGA, Hail Caesar, Warmaster, Blitzkrieg Commander and others to play. If this is posited as a skirmish game, I just don't see anything about it from poring over the rules that makes me want to play this instead of SAGA or Lion Rampant.

I personally love the now (sadly) officially dead "old world" but havent played any warhammer in about 15 years. Mordheim, Warmaster and a few PC-games and books though, thats another story For me, seeing GW leaving it all behind is a bit sad. But looking at what they actually did too it lately (End Times... Really!?) I'm pretty happy they wont screw it up any further

Reading the new rules, discussing them with gaming friends at the local (member-run) club and seeing "let's-play"s on youtube I really can't see why anyone would choose this game over anything else. I have tried, thinking I'm missing something, but it doesnt look that way. I might be wrong but it feels like a pretty shitty game atm. But in the end, really doesnt matter for me since I didnt play the old and wont play the new.

What will be sad in the long run is GW not creating anymore fantastic miniatures usable in the old world. The new stuff... Nope. No. Thanks but naaaaah!

Time will tell where the new game will end up. That's the only interesting part for me.

I just wish that GW would have taken 8th Edition forward rather than removing it: yes change it, but no so much as to make it obsolete.

For me a big problem is finding people to play with. Yes 8th Edition is popular where I am, but local gaming clubs haven't touched it for years and the only local "hot spot" is the GW store. Having 2 young children and a busy job, the convenience of playing at the store is the reason I picked up warhammer again when they re-opened it in my area. However, 8th will not be played forever in store and inevitably they will have to stop supporting it thereby meaning I have no-one to play with.

I am interested to see how well AoS does and whether GW will revaluate its decision to completely drop 8th edition if it fails:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum